Garko to play left??
I'm not sure if anyone else has seen this, but Castro writes here about the Indians experimenting with Garko in LF. Does anyone else view this as a colossal waste of time, or simply hilarious?
almost 3 years ago
Chief Wahoo
52 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Yes.
I refuse to ever root for a team that routinely does the MVP chant for opposing players.
by TheVanillaGorilla on Feb 17, 2009 2:13 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
It’s a waste of time only if you believe that giving Garko time to work on his LF defense is hurting other parts of his or other players’ games. If you don’t believe that — and I don’t — then it’s not a waste of time at all. It’s about finding out if Garko is versatile enough to play some games out there.
I realize you think the result is predictable — he can’t handle OF defense — but I don’t mind giving it a look.
I actually find it disturbing. Moving Garko to the OF makes no sense, which suggests they are only trying him out there out of desperation. I would rather the team not be desperate.
Seems to me more like they’re trying to give him a chance to be worth something, or at very least increase his trade value.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 17, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
Seeing Garko in the outfield might actually lower his trade value.
by Jay on Feb 17, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t disagree. I’m just trying to come up with some justification for this.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 17, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t really have a problem with it (Ben Broussard, anyone?), but I don’t understand why he isn’t trying RF instead? You would think the transition from 1B>RF would be easier than 1B>LF. At least, that seems logical to me.
Isn’t RF a more difficult adjustment for any fielder? It’s generally a hard position to field and you need a stronger arm. The adjustment to LF seems logical to me (if you’re even going to try him out there). The odd thing about this move is that these type of adjustments are made to improve the team’s flexibility (allowing Wedge to have more permutations of different starting lineups, perhaps to adjust for platoons) or to keep a bat in the lineup. Why are we worried about keeping Garko’s bat in the lineup at this point?
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Feb 17, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Why are we worried about keeping Garko’s bat in the lineup at this point?
That’s the question that really needs to be asked here. As bad as Garko looked, he was en fuego compared to Looch. In case of epic fail by Francisco, they can put Garko out there and keep DeRosa at third, while having have more time to give LaPorta and Brantley seasoning in Columbus without having to put Carroll at third for an extended stay It also gives them the ability to give Victor more time at first and Shoppach at catcher while DHing Pronk.
Yeah – it’s about flexibility, but it’s more about having a backup plan in case of serious regression and epic fail. Last year, it seemed clear that there was not much of a backup plan in place. This year it seems that management is trying to hedge all possible bets.
by woodsmeister on Feb 17, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Last year, there were many backup plans in place, but management was extremely slow to get serious about using them. They kept Hafner and Martinez in there far too long. They fiddled around with Tyner and Aubrey, kept Marte and Shoppach playing dominoes, and took far too long to turn the AB over to Choo and Francisco.
There is a table in the book that shows the Top 10 AL hitters from June 1 to the end of the year. The point of the table is that Choo and Shoppach are both on it. But something else you can see from that table is that even from June 1 on, those two guys didn’t get as much playing time as other AL starters, they have 80-100 fewer at-bats.
Even in September, Choo was sitting against lefty starters. I had a friend who had him on his fantasy team, and I could point to every game a week ahead of time that Choo wouldn’t be playing in
By my count, Choo got 4 starts against lefties in September. He sat twice against lefties, Liriano and Danks.
Haha, thanks for the official. I was pretty busy in Sep, so was going purely off what I remember watching
I hate to trot out the last-12-games thing again, but I will anyway. Garko’s OPS was slightly worse than Dellucci’s through mid-September, after which Garko padded his stats significantly by feasting on a succession of talentless and worn-out pitchers. Dellucci got a lot less playing time at that point and, it should be noted, was terrible, but for most of the season, Dellucci was out-hitting Garko a bit.
Ideally, Garko and Dellucci would platoon in what I call the “tenth hitter” role. That is, if one of the good position players dies right before the game when it’s too late to make a roster move, the tenth hitter is the guy you send in there. Also gets sent in as a pinch-hitter when you’re not really trying to win the game as much as frustrate and demoralize the hitter you’re removing, but once Marte is off the roster, there may not be as much call for that role.
by Jay on Feb 17, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
I’m confused. Are you trying to tell me that David Dellucci would be a better hitter than DeRo if DeRo died an hour before the game???? I’m not so sure about that. Looch would still be a worse OF as well, at least until rigor mortis really set in…
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
As bad as Garko looked, he was en fuego compared to Looch.
This is in the dictionary under the entry, “damning with faint praise.”
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Feb 17, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Because Garko isn’t as horrible/low ceiling as people on LGT make him out to be. I know I’ll catch flack for that comment. I see no reason why Garko can’t rebound to his 2007 levels.
by world dictator on Feb 18, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
At this point we’ve made a joke out of it, but the core assessment is correct. His ceiling is something around 900 OPS with no defensive or baserunning value to speak of, and with a 750 OPS, that’s horrible.
But, Jay, he can shotgun two beers at once. Can your statistics do that?!?
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 19, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I think they’re trying Garko in left because it’s basically inconceivable that we would want Garko in RF, while someone else (Choo, Francisco, The Reflex) plays LF. I would imagine that Garko has enough arm for RF, though. As a former catcher known for his lack of athleticism, arm strength probably is the least of his potential issues as an outfielder.
Wow – failed revisions galore. Let’s try it again:
That’s the question that really needs to be asked here. As bad as Garko looked, he was en fuego compared to Looch. In case of epic fail by Francisco, they can put Garko out there and keep DeRosa at third, while having more time to give LaPorta and Brantley seasoning in Columbus without having to put Carroll at third for an extended stay.
It also gives them the ability to give Victor more time at first and Shoppach at catcher while DHing Pronk.
Yeah – it’s about flexibility, but it’s more about having a backup plan in case of serious regression and epic fail. Last year, it seemed clear that there was not much of a backup plan in place. This year it seems that management is trying to hedge all possible bets.
While you would think that Garko’s presumed arm (he is a former catcher) would make him a right fielder, it’s important to remember that there is much less room to cover in left at Progressive Field.
All I know is an outfield consisting of Garko in left, Barfield in center, and Carroll in right would be downright entertaining…As long as it’s only during ST.
by Chief Wahoo on Feb 17, 2009 3:53 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
It might also be an amusing lineup to see the day after the Tribe clinches home field for the playoffs.
by still ill on Feb 17, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
but only if this is done so that our opponent would clinch the wild card as a result of beating us, and thus making the Yankees miss the playoffs yet again.
by lenred on Feb 17, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I actually don’t mind this at all. For his career, Garko has a .894 OPS against lefties. If he is able to play left, which I am skeptical of, it would allow us to have Hafner at DH, Shop at C, Vic at first, and Francisco in right.
I’m not convince of Choo’s ability to hit lefties. He never hit them in the minors and in his major league career has a .703 OPS against lefties in 116 PA.
The father of a guy I know says Garko seems slimmer.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
I think I’m supposed to respond to this, but I’m not sure what it means.
by supermarioelia on Feb 17, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Ah never mind, you were talking about an actual father, not Andy Marte’s father.
by supermarioelia on Feb 17, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
This strikes me as one of those deals where it happens probably no more than 3 times in the season.
Scenario where we’re the home team, down a couple runs or a run in the 9th with a lefty on the mound like Fuentes or Sherill and you at least go all in with him being the best bat available in a PH situation. Maybe he pops one or ties it with a double. Where worst case, the game ends up tied and you have to live with him in LF.
Kind of like that time in 2007 when Wedge went all in and pinch hit Shoppach with Vic already in the game and we would have lost the DH with Hafner if memory serves. And Shoppach hit it out.
This is one of those ideas that seems idiotic even in foresight.
by Ryan on Feb 17, 2009 10:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
My thought is this, if we’re that desperate for a LF, how about a guy who has experience there.
Someone like this guy:

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Feb 17, 2009 11:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

















